If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
Right. So let's abolish the criminal justice system, because it's clearly unjust to punish someone for something they had no choice but to do.
Oh wait, we can't, because we don't have the free will to do so. Oh noes, and such.
What the hell? That's gone beyond strawman and is just haystack - isn't the whole point of the criminal justice system to prevent people from commiting crimes, by you know - giving them a reason not to? Its pretty sure that people aren't going to stick to the rules unless you add some punishment to make them.
Our justice system is at least partly premised on the idea that people are willfully committing these crimes, which is why "temporary insanity" is a viable option. If you're not in control of your actions, the justice system will either let you free (if, say, someone held a gun to your head and forced you to act), or throw you in the loony bin (if you're so fucking whacko that you can't control yourself). The only people who get sent to prison are those who consciously made decisions to commit crimes, or made decisions that result in crimes being committed (say, criminal negligence). If we remove free will from the equation, well, jail ceases to make sense given our currently philosophy. Our only real choice is to just throw everyone in the psych ward.
Insanity defence makes more sense following determinism though - letting them off (assuming you've prooved insanity) doesn't impact the justice system since the reason they commited these crimes is something other than the usual risk/reward process that most people go through. Hence upping the risk isn't going to do anything anyway other than give the state another mouth to feed.
If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
Emergent behaviour is often effectively unpredictable.
Langdon's ant is a good example of this; it is a simple computer program with a very simple set of rules of a single entity's movement on a board and the patterns it produces with just black and white. We know the rules; however, the end result is impossible to predict without actually running through every step of the rules, and the results have complex and distinct phases even though they are based on simple rules. It seems quite likely that the universe, enormously complex as it is, functions on similar principles if it is entirely deterministic.
If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
We can fairly reliably predict the behaviours of populations, and somewhat less reliably the behaviours of an individual. This is one of the fundamental pieces of evidence against free will. But because human behaviour largely consists of reactions to stimuli, this magical "formula" you propose would need to be able to predict any and all natural phenomena that might influence our actions, which is virtually impossible.
I mean you are basically asking for a mathematical formula that can predict every particle in the universe.
The real problem is- free will is only exposed as illusory by using the thought experiment of "going back in time, re-setting everything."
Now, things might not actually play exactly the same way each time- there could be some randomness to the universe. This would give us the retroactive illusion of free will, though it would actually just be that our behaviors are locked into probabilities instead of a single inevitable direction.
Even so, we only see the "illusion" for what it is with this thought experiment. Which is interesting.
Christ this is why pretentious philosophical debate is stupid. I made the conscious choice of getting off my ass to get pizza, and sit back down to type this damn post. As far as I'm concerned I have some freakin free will to do what I want. Whether this is actually true in the grand-uber-reality or not is something I don't give two shits about.
If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
We can fairly reliably predict the behaviours of populations, and somewhat less reliably the behaviours of an individual. This is one of the fundamental pieces of evidence against free will. But because human behaviour largely consists of reactions to stimuli, this magical "formula" you propose would need to be able to predict any and all natural phenomena that might influence our actions, which is virtually impossible.
I mean you are basically asking for a mathematical formula that can predict every particle in the universe.
Predictability =/= no free will. The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Christ this is why pretentious philosophical debate is stupid. I made the conscious choice of getting off my ass to get pizza, and sit back down to type this damn post. As far as I'm concerned I have some freakin free will to do what I want. Whether this is actually true in the grand-uber-reality or not is something I don't give two shits about.
Except you got off your ass to get pizza as a result of X, and you typed "this damn post" as a result of Y. And you don't give a shit because of Z.
Having the illusion of free will is not the same thing as having free will.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead
The day that you do will be the direct result of a chemical reaction caused by days of you having coffee every morning. It's sad people cling to the illusion of free will but it doesn't change anything.
If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
We can fairly reliably predict the behaviours of populations, and somewhat less reliably the behaviours of an individual. This is one of the fundamental pieces of evidence against free will. But because human behaviour largely consists of reactions to stimuli, this magical "formula" you propose would need to be able to predict any and all natural phenomena that might influence our actions, which is virtually impossible.
I mean you are basically asking for a mathematical formula that can predict every particle in the universe.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
You're claiming that there's no free will because you can't make all the possible choices at once at one point in time? That's completely fucking ridiculous.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
You're claiming that there's no free will because you can't make all the possible choices at once at one point in time? That's completely fucking ridiculous.
No, i'm claiming that there is no free will because all human actions are caused, and that what we do is the result of something.
If we had free will there would be no such thing as causality. The two ideas conflict.
If there's no free will then shouldn't there be some mathematical formula that can predict the entire history and future of the human race?
Or is there some magical random mechanic that determines my choices (and this mechanic isn't free will because I didn't make the choice, the magical random mechanic did it)?
Uh... no.
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
We can fairly reliably predict the behaviours of populations, and somewhat less reliably the behaviours of an individual. This is one of the fundamental pieces of evidence against free will. But because human behaviour largely consists of reactions to stimuli, this magical "formula" you propose would need to be able to predict any and all natural phenomena that might influence our actions, which is virtually impossible.
I mean you are basically asking for a mathematical formula that can predict every particle in the universe.
Predictability =/= no free will. The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
I never said predictability == no free will, QED. But the fact that we have common behaviours that are verifiably caused, certainly does not favour the idea that somewhere in the human brain is something, some sort of force, a soul if you will, that wills those observably logical, electrochemical reactions to occur in one fashion or another.
I don't really post in D&D but this is a topic that has interested me ever since I took a Philosophy class a few years ago.
Going back to AbsoluteZero's thing about some crazy 'formula' that could predict the outcome of the human race and retell all of human history-
Wouldn't this theoretically be possible to do if you had some arbitrarily powerful mind who had the kind of near-omniscience required to bring all of the innumerable factors together cohesively? Would quantum mechanics make this impossible due to the randomness?
And the people who are saying "I totally just chose to eat some pizza" or "I pick my coffee every morning" are totally missing the point.
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
You're claiming that there's no free will because you can't make all the possible choices at once at one point in time? That's completely fucking ridiculous.
No, i'm claiming that there is no free will because all human actions are caused, and that what we do is the result of something.
If we had free will there would be no such thing as causality. The two ideas conflict.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and you should be ashamed of even typing it out. Go and think about what you've done
I don't really post in D&D but this is a topic that has interested me ever since I took a Philosophy class a few years ago.
Going back to AbsoluteZero's thing about some crazy 'formula' that could predict the outcome of the human race and retell all of human history-
Wouldn't this theoretically be possible to do if you had some arbitrarily powerful mind who had the kind of near-omniscience required to bring all of the innumerable factors together cohesively? Would quantum mechanics make this impossible due to the randomness?
And the people who are saying "I totally just chose to eat some pizza" or "I pick my coffee every morning" are totally missing the point.
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
What's the great appeal of caustally-indeterminate free will that gets people all excited when it's said not to exist?
I'm happy to not have that kind of free will. And not because is absolves me of any kind of responsibility either. In fact, it's just the opposite. In the end, what am I but a reflexively aware collection of thoughts, memories, preferences and the like? I am responsible for my actions because the things that identify me as an individual are the things that cause my decisions to be made the ways in which they are made. The things that go into creating my predetermined decisions are the most vital aspects of who I am. What kind of help is some crazy coin-tossing mechanism in my brain? What good does it do me?
The fact that I like a coffee with breakfast every morning doesn't mean I can't choose tea instead :roll: You people are morons. And Loren, you are so off my christmas card list.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
You're claiming that there's no free will because you can't make all the possible choices at once at one point in time? That's completely fucking ridiculous.
No, i'm claiming that there is no free will because all human actions are caused, and that what we do is the result of something.
If we had free will there would be no such thing as causality. The two ideas conflict.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and you should be ashamed of even typing it out. Go and think about what you've done
That's a great argument.
If your will motivates your actions, what motivates your will? It's pretty clear that your will is motivated by environmental factors and physical causes, in my mind. If you're hungry, you will eat; if you're tired, you sleep; if you disagree, you argue. You want to eat not because your consciousness is free to want to eat, you want to eat because your body needs nutrients.
If your will is not motivated by physical causes and the world around you, then what is the connection between will and world?
Your will is your desires, and your desires are pretty obviously shaped by biology and circumstance.
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
If the workings of the universe are emergent - which they most likely are given how complicated it is - then there is no way to predict what will happen without literally simulating every single particle and packet of energy in the entire universe and all their interactions. This is an absurd notion and is impossible without a computer that is more complex than the universe, according to simulation theory that I've read.. It is also impractical in the same way as Langdon's ant; there is no equation to determine where the ant will end up or the patterns it will end up creating. You can only go through its motions step by step. The only way you can find out what happens in the universe is go through the motions.
Getting rid of criminal justice because it all doesn't matter doesn't make sense either.
So what if the universe was entirely deterministic? Evolutionarily, isn't separation from delinquent/dysfunctional members a survival mechanism? Our justice system should stay in place not because we choose to put people away that do bad things, but because it makes sense to us to put people away that do bad things.
You realize that all determinism does to the criminal justice system is move more towards behaviorism and further away from psychological humanism, right?
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
If the workings of the universe are emergent - which they most likely are given how complicated it is - then there is no way to predict what will happen without literally simulating every single particle and packet of energy in the entire universe and all their interactions. This is an absurd notion and is impossible without a computer that is more complex than the universe, according to simulation theory that I've read.. It is also impractical in the same way as Langdon's ant; there is no equation to determine where the ant will end up or the patterns it will end up creating. You can only go through its motions step by step. The only way you can find out what happens in the universe is go through the motions.
Well of course I realize it's insane to think that anything we could conceive could ever actually make these kinds of predictions, which is why I said "theoretically with an arbitrarily powerful, near-omniscient mind". If there were such a mind though, couldn't it just go ahead and simulate out those steps in effect achieving the same result as if it had done the impossibility of predicting it outright in one step?
And to clarify, is emergence being used as leverage against free will not existing or are we only still talking about imaginary universal seers?
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
If the workings of the universe are emergent - which they most likely are given how complicated it is - then there is no way to predict what will happen without literally simulating every single particle and packet of energy in the entire universe and all their interactions. This is an absurd notion and is impossible without a computer that is more complex than the universe, according to simulation theory that I've read.. It is also impractical in the same way as Langdon's ant; there is no equation to determine where the ant will end up or the patterns it will end up creating. You can only go through its motions step by step. The only way you can find out what happens in the universe is go through the motions.
Well of course I realize it's insane to think that anything we could conceive could ever actually make these kinds of predictions, which is why I said "theoretically with an arbitrarily powerful, near-omniscient mind". If there were such a mind though, couldn't it just go ahead and simulate out those steps in effect achieving the same result as if it had done the impossibility of predicting it outright in one step?
And to clarify, is emergence being used as leverage against free will not existing or are we only still talking about imaginary universal seers?
Right, we can predict things with magic. But since we live in a universe that doesn't have magic, we can't.
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
If the workings of the universe are emergent - which they most likely are given how complicated it is - then there is no way to predict what will happen without literally simulating every single particle and packet of energy in the entire universe and all their interactions. This is an absurd notion and is impossible without a computer that is more complex than the universe, according to simulation theory that I've read.. It is also impractical in the same way as Langdon's ant; there is no equation to determine where the ant will end up or the patterns it will end up creating. You can only go through its motions step by step. The only way you can find out what happens in the universe is go through the motions.
Well of course I realize it's insane to think that anything we could conceive could ever actually make these kinds of predictions, which is why I said "theoretically with an arbitrarily powerful, near-omniscient mind". If there were such a mind though, couldn't it just go ahead and simulate out those steps in effect achieving the same result as if it had done the impossibility of predicting it outright in one step?
And to clarify, is emergence being used as leverage against free will not existing or are we only still talking about imaginary universal seers?
The point is that it is impossible to make those predictions from within our own universe, since it is impossible to make a computer more complex than the universe that contains it. That is the gist of the theory AFAIK. This isn't even taking into account the possibility that quantum events are, in fact, completely random probability functions, and thus it would be impossible to correctly predict them even with that magic computer. Saying "theoretically if we had a magic super device" just makes the rest of the sentence nonsense.
Regardless, emergence is just a side-bar of the determinism thing. People claim that a deterministic universe with no free will can be predicted, but it can't. Doesn't really have much to do with it.
Getting rid of criminal justice because it all doesn't matter doesn't make sense either.
So what if the universe was entirely deterministic? Evolutionarily, isn't separation from delinquent/dysfunctional members a survival mechanism? Our justice system should stay in place not because we choose to put people away that do bad things, but because it makes sense to us to put people away that do bad things.
_J_ has said pretty much everything I wanted to say, to I'll just followup on the criminal justice tangent.
I agree with what you said, but a justice system is also a strong disencentive to pursue harmful action that is illegal. It is an additional factor that contributes to our deterministically not wanting to pursue criminal action.
Cat, I'm probably just retreading over something that was already said, but the problem is that there's no choice behind the choices you make. You may choose to have tea one day, but your choice isn't motivated by anything but, so far as we can tell, your brain and your environment.
I would argue that, even if you have some kind of entity outside that (a soul, say), you're just commiting a homunculus fallacy and the problem doesn't get resolved.
But surely "free will" is essentially defined as making a decision based off the information presented by our brains, whether or not said information is determined by anything from hormones to quantum flux (or whatnot)?
Or are you trying to put forth the conceptual argument regarding the disparity between the mind and the lump of chemical-sodden muscle we associate with it- as in, that "we're" not making decisions, the brain is? In which case, aren't you diving into a discussion on the nature of self more than free will?
Reminds me of that one quote. "I used to think the brain was the most important part of my body, but look what was telling me that..."
But surely "free will" is essentially defined as making a decision based off the information presented by our brains, whether or not said information is determined by anything from hormones to quantum flux (or whatnot)?
Or are you trying to put forth the conceptual argument regarding the disparity between the mind and the lump of chemical-sodden muscle we associate with it- as in, that "we're" not making decisions, the brain is? In which case, aren't you diving into a discussion on the nature of self more than free will?
Reminds me of that one quote. "I used to think the brain was the most important part of my body, but look what was telling me that..."
The question is what people who argue for free will claim it is "free" from.
What constraints are there that our will is free from? What is the difference between free will and constrained will, or lack of will whatsoever?
So, let me get this straight. Free will is not possible when everything we do is based off of the environment, past experience, memories, and emotions (based off of the above)? Free will would require a completely random decision (X) not based off of anything but a blank desire to do X?
Is that pretty much what free will is? Forgive me, I'm sorta new to this idea.
Posts
If there's no free will, and there's no magical random mechanic to compensate, then doesn't that leave cause and effect? Cause and effect seems mighty predictable to me.
Chemistry is an expression of genetics and prior knowledge/experience.
Lock criminals up because they are a danger. Lock criminals up because it will deter potential criminals.
But all people really are just hapless slaves to their chemistry.
I really feel like enjoying a blue-berry muffin now.
Emergent behaviour is often effectively unpredictable.
Langdon's ant is a good example of this; it is a simple computer program with a very simple set of rules of a single entity's movement on a board and the patterns it produces with just black and white. We know the rules; however, the end result is impossible to predict without actually running through every step of the rules, and the results have complex and distinct phases even though they are based on simple rules. It seems quite likely that the universe, enormously complex as it is, functions on similar principles if it is entirely deterministic.
I mean you are basically asking for a mathematical formula that can predict every particle in the universe.
Was directly above:
An intentional mistake, or an inevitable one?
Now, things might not actually play exactly the same way each time- there could be some randomness to the universe. This would give us the retroactive illusion of free will, though it would actually just be that our behaviors are locked into probabilities instead of a single inevitable direction.
Even so, we only see the "illusion" for what it is with this thought experiment. Which is interesting.
Except you got off your ass to get pizza as a result of X, and you typed "this damn post" as a result of Y. And you don't give a shit because of Z.
Having the illusion of free will is not the same thing as having free will.
Right, but the fact that you don't choose tea means that you can't choose tea in the instance in which you do not choose tea.
If you had free will you could always do those things contrary to the things which you do.
The day that you do will be the direct result of a chemical reaction caused by days of you having coffee every morning. It's sad people cling to the illusion of free will but it doesn't change anything.
Welcome to physics.
No, i'm claiming that there is no free will because all human actions are caused, and that what we do is the result of something.
If we had free will there would be no such thing as causality. The two ideas conflict.
Going back to AbsoluteZero's thing about some crazy 'formula' that could predict the outcome of the human race and retell all of human history-
Wouldn't this theoretically be possible to do if you had some arbitrarily powerful mind who had the kind of near-omniscience required to bring all of the innumerable factors together cohesively? Would quantum mechanics make this impossible due to the randomness?
And the people who are saying "I totally just chose to eat some pizza" or "I pick my coffee every morning" are totally missing the point.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and you should be ashamed of even typing it out. Go and think about what you've done
You could only do it after the fact. You need to read up on emergence. Its not me that's missing the point.
It's a fucking giant whale. It doesn't get more real than a giant fucking whale.
I'm happy to not have that kind of free will. And not because is absolves me of any kind of responsibility either. In fact, it's just the opposite. In the end, what am I but a reflexively aware collection of thoughts, memories, preferences and the like? I am responsible for my actions because the things that identify me as an individual are the things that cause my decisions to be made the ways in which they are made. The things that go into creating my predetermined decisions are the most vital aspects of who I am. What kind of help is some crazy coin-tossing mechanism in my brain? What good does it do me?
We are made of atoms interacting together. We have chemistry which allows us to predict how atoms interact. Therefore are we completely predictable?
What is thought? Electrical / ionic impulses? Is thought just as predictable as, say, the workings of a complex computer?
Science help us.
That's a great argument.
If your will motivates your actions, what motivates your will? It's pretty clear that your will is motivated by environmental factors and physical causes, in my mind. If you're hungry, you will eat; if you're tired, you sleep; if you disagree, you argue. You want to eat not because your consciousness is free to want to eat, you want to eat because your body needs nutrients.
If your will is not motivated by physical causes and the world around you, then what is the connection between will and world?
Your will is your desires, and your desires are pretty obviously shaped by biology and circumstance.
From what I understand of emergence, it's the idea that complex systems can arise over time from a set of simple rules if I'm not mistaken. Honestly I'm not totally clear on what place emergence has in this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me on your perspective.
If the workings of the universe are emergent - which they most likely are given how complicated it is - then there is no way to predict what will happen without literally simulating every single particle and packet of energy in the entire universe and all their interactions. This is an absurd notion and is impossible without a computer that is more complex than the universe, according to simulation theory that I've read.. It is also impractical in the same way as Langdon's ant; there is no equation to determine where the ant will end up or the patterns it will end up creating. You can only go through its motions step by step. The only way you can find out what happens in the universe is go through the motions.
So what if the universe was entirely deterministic? Evolutionarily, isn't separation from delinquent/dysfunctional members a survival mechanism? Our justice system should stay in place not because we choose to put people away that do bad things, but because it makes sense to us to put people away that do bad things.
You realize that all determinism does to the criminal justice system is move more towards behaviorism and further away from psychological humanism, right?
I mean.
This is sort of basic.
Well of course I realize it's insane to think that anything we could conceive could ever actually make these kinds of predictions, which is why I said "theoretically with an arbitrarily powerful, near-omniscient mind". If there were such a mind though, couldn't it just go ahead and simulate out those steps in effect achieving the same result as if it had done the impossibility of predicting it outright in one step?
And to clarify, is emergence being used as leverage against free will not existing or are we only still talking about imaginary universal seers?
The point is that it is impossible to make those predictions from within our own universe, since it is impossible to make a computer more complex than the universe that contains it. That is the gist of the theory AFAIK. This isn't even taking into account the possibility that quantum events are, in fact, completely random probability functions, and thus it would be impossible to correctly predict them even with that magic computer. Saying "theoretically if we had a magic super device" just makes the rest of the sentence nonsense.
Regardless, emergence is just a side-bar of the determinism thing. People claim that a deterministic universe with no free will can be predicted, but it can't. Doesn't really have much to do with it.
_J_ has said pretty much everything I wanted to say, to I'll just followup on the criminal justice tangent.
I agree with what you said, but a justice system is also a strong disencentive to pursue harmful action that is illegal. It is an additional factor that contributes to our deterministically not wanting to pursue criminal action.
Cat, I'm probably just retreading over something that was already said, but the problem is that there's no choice behind the choices you make. You may choose to have tea one day, but your choice isn't motivated by anything but, so far as we can tell, your brain and your environment.
I would argue that, even if you have some kind of entity outside that (a soul, say), you're just commiting a homunculus fallacy and the problem doesn't get resolved.
Or are you trying to put forth the conceptual argument regarding the disparity between the mind and the lump of chemical-sodden muscle we associate with it- as in, that "we're" not making decisions, the brain is? In which case, aren't you diving into a discussion on the nature of self more than free will?
Reminds me of that one quote. "I used to think the brain was the most important part of my body, but look what was telling me that..."
The question is what people who argue for free will claim it is "free" from.
What constraints are there that our will is free from? What is the difference between free will and constrained will, or lack of will whatsoever?
So, let me get this straight. Free will is not possible when everything we do is based off of the environment, past experience, memories, and emotions (based off of the above)? Free will would require a completely random decision (X) not based off of anything but a blank desire to do X?
Is that pretty much what free will is? Forgive me, I'm sorta new to this idea.